Issues that hinder our Message

This article is meant for two very different groups of people. First, this is for those who are skeptical, atheistic, or just agnostic, I’ll call them ‘non-theist’, towards Christianity. The second group, I’ll call ‘evangelists’, are those trying to reach the first with the truths of the Christian faith and worldview. There are vast differences of opinions, ranging from one end of the scale to another, yet I want to point out some things to each group, I think would be helpful in further discussions.

Often, there are barriers to communication, many could be avoided if concessions on both sides were given. I’m going to describe a few things that often hinder productive discussions, as these things become a deterrent to the matter at hand. For the ‘non-theist’ and ‘evangelist’, conceding some points may lead to more useful discussions and hopefully bring the considerations to more weighty matters. In a court case, one side will concede some points, evidence, or theories, which they may not agree with, but the argument of such would be of no value to the OVERALL case. I hope to show some conceding points, and thus move the discussions forward.

UNIVERSE

Scientist throw around the word ‘billions’ when describing the age of the Universe. Depending on the ‘expert’ you read or listen to, it is safe to say they will describe the age of our Universe as 13 billion years (give or take a million), as the age of our Universe, or at least its beginning of what we know of it now. Many Christians, especially the ‘young-earth’ types, argue with the ‘non-theist’ on this point, and it seems to me that there is no point to argue. Moses, in describing the Creation account, is not careful to give us a ‘starting’ date of the UNIVERSE. He is more concerned with the ‘who’ than the ‘what’ or ‘when’ of it. There is many who would argue, plenty of Bible believing scholars, that Moses account was a polemic treatise rather than a thorough point by point description.

Gordon H. Johnston, Professor of Old Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary discusses why the Genesis account of creation is more about the theology than the science, “Genesis 1 appears to be a literary polemic designed to refute ancient Near Eastern creation mythology…” he states, and concluded that this account, “…was originally composed, not as a scientific treatise, but as a theological polemic against the ancient Egyptian models…” (Bibliotheca Sacra 165 [April-June 2008]:178-94). His point does not detract from the point of Genesis 1:1ff, that is to say, God created it all, whether it was 13 billion or ten thousand years ago.

For the ‘evangelist’ I would say, concede the age deal, matter-of-fact, the Big Bang Theory is not anti-theistic in its application, as there is the idea that everything began at a moment, a singularity, that God CAN account for. My ‘non-theist’ friends, I would ask concession on this point, too. There is nothing in the age of the Universe that precludes there being a Divine origin. As many great philosophers and cosmologist have stated, anything that begins to exist must have a cause, there is no uncaused causes, which begin to exist. That God could do it 10,000 years ago or 13 billion is of no consequence. The claim is, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1 ESV) It is a cosmology argument not a mathematical one.

EVOLUTION

If there is a more contention issue between Christianity and science (in reality those who are ‘religiously’ bound to evolution), evolution has few rivals. Recently my own son in his college class (not a science class but sociology) challenged the professor on ‘evolution’ as valid. Of course, by evolution he was speaking of Darwinian Evolution. “Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related” (http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/#sthash.vxOciHRt.dpuf). This is the idea that one species ‘evolves’ into another, that I reject on scientific grounds, and some philosophical and biblical, too. Evolution is not invalid, if we define it as, “any process of formation or growth; development:” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evolution). This is one of those areas that concession should be given by my ‘evangelist’ friends, as God can and does use evolution to diversify the world we live in. ‘Non-theist’ should concede as well, God can use whatever mechanism, function, or process he wants to bring about life and its diversity.

I may disagree with some things theistic evolutionists believe, but believing God can use it, shouldn’t be one, “Theistic evolution is the proposition that God is in charge of the biological process called evolution. God directs and guides the unfolding of life forms over millions of years. Theistic evolution contends that there is no conflict between science and the Biblical book of Genesis,” (http://www.theistic-evolution.com/theisticevolution.html). Scientist disagree about theories and processes, constantly, but the pursuit of truth should not be hindered by the assumptions of anti-Darwinism or Darwinist evolution, or the beliefs held by either. Again, if God used evolution, He still is the first cause, which science has no answer to.

Of course, evolution causes (especially Darwinism) huge issues with the story of Adam and Eve. If you believe Christ was God in the flesh, you know He referenced them, “But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’” (Mark 10:6 ESV). Again, this does not preclude evolution. What it does say, and this is significant, that humans were created by God as a ‘special’, very different entity, which my ‘non-theist’ friends could surely concede (that humanity is above the animal kingdom in a variety of ways-which could be accomplished by special creation or evolution). The ‘evangelist’ friend would do well to concede, their animosity to evolution (even Darwinian), as it is not a hindrance to the idea of God, as I see it.

WORLDWIDE FLOOD

There are many flood stories in antiquity, “The flood myths or deluge myths are, taken collectively, myths of a great flood. These accounts depict global flooding, usually sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution. Flood stories are common across a wide range of cultures, extending back into prehistory.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths).

On the page cited there are many similar ‘flood’ or ‘deluge’ stories:

I. West Asia and Europe

• A. Ancient Near East

• 1 Sumerian

• 2 Babylonian (Epic of Gilgamesh)

• 3 Abrahamic religions (Noah's flood)

• B. Medieval Europe

• 1. Irish

• 2. Norse

• C. Modern era folklore (Finnish)

II. Africa

• A. Kwaya

• B. Mbuti

• C. Maasai

• D. Mandin

• E. Yoruba

III. Asia-Pacific

• A. India

• B. Central Asia/Turkestan

• C. China

• D. Korea

• E. Malaysia

• F. Tai-Kadai people

• G. Philippines

IV. Oceania

• A. Polynesia

• B. Hawaii

V. Americas

• A. North America

• B. Mesoamerica

• C. South America

• 1. Canari

• 2. Inca

• 3. Mapuche

• 4. Muisca

• 5. Tupi

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths#References)

With so many similar stories, it seems that it is possible there was some ‘flood’ somewhere, which was carried in the collective memory of many different cultures across many different continents. Our ‘non-theist’ friends should concede that there is some basis (outside the Biblical narrative) to the story that many Christians take as a part of our human history.

Many of our ‘non-theist’ friends are now asking what I am asking the ‘evangelist’ to concede. I would ask that the ‘evangelist’ concede the ‘world-wide’ part and ‘every animal in the ark’ parts. The point of the story, it would seem (the Biblical as well as many of the other ancient stories) is God was angry with mankind’s evil and brought judgement down on them. This is what we should be concerned as the theme and not, as with the Universe, Creation, and/or Adam and Eve, the scientific explanation of the way the world was and is now.

CONCLUSION

Looking at the concessions I have asked from both sides, it would seem that their maybe a misunderstanding of where I stand on these issues myself. As a bit of clarification, I will spell out my thoughts on each subject. But bear in mind that I am willing to concede my position for the sake of getting to the more weightier issues of morals, ethics, and values in discussing our worldviews, as well as sin, Christ’s death (and resurrection), and salvation in light of our souls.

MY THOUGHTS

So, as for the age of the Universe: I am convinced that the Universe is old, as in billions of years, but God begun the special creation of Mankind around 10,000 years ago. I guess that makes me an ‘Old-Universe-Young-Earth (inhabited)’ kind of guy. As for evolution, I am thoroughly convinced that Darwinism is false, it is hard for me to accept anything that seems as far-fetched as a monkey becoming a man, by any means that have been shown to me. Is it feasible that evolution occurs? Yes, if you mean by that animals adapting to their environment. Finally, I am without a doubt a ‘world-wide’ flood believer. I believe God destroyed mankind for the rampant sin and evil present at the time, beginning the new world with Noah and his family. I also believe, the whole world would have been much different than the one we have now (possible all one continent).

Again, I am willing to concede (not change my mind) the above points, but to be open and honest I wanted the reader to be aware of where I stand on each of these issues. I am fully committed to reaching any and all for Christ. I think it is much more important to talk about what you think about a man that would rise from the dead and what it is the significance of that. The other issues, many of which I have enumerated here, are of little or no consequence outside of that truth.

#universe #evolution #Noahsflood #ark